Historic Accuracy? Is it important or no?



  • I’d love to know who is deciding what weapons are in this game, also the accuracy of how they came about. Mostly cause many people are running around thinking this game is ‘authentic’ or playing for ‘realism’ Do you guys even hire a weapon historian for this? If not I suggest it. Simply for the treatment you gave War Hammer, wow… And if it is ‘Authentic’ then I’d love the info posted on Whom is doing this decision making on authentic and realism.

    Secondly, when playing an archer… I’m tired of being hit by random team mates cause they have some grudge against archers. Maybe you should have some kind of label for people hit by friendly fire so they can know whom is hitting them. It’s kind of misdirected rage when out of no where a team member walks over and kills me its irritating especially when I’m busy trying to find a guy the size of an ’ i ’

    Thirdly, I added up some numbers on weapon damage, speed, reach totals. I know your shooting for the differences in ranged, two handed, one handed and shield all that jazz. But serious? War Hammer worse primary tier 1 in the game? Check your history all I’m going to say, Why I recommend the first.

    150: Longbow
    165: Crossbow
    180: Javelin

    160: Broadsword
    146: Hatchet
    146: Mace

    171: Great sword
    195: Spear
    190: Bardiche

    150: Double Axe
    143: War Hammer
    169: Long Sword

    Aside that, I can’t believe you don’t have a Bec de corbin. I’ll play this ‘mess’ long as my friends want to play it but that’s the only thing keeping me. Find this game to be pretty hypocritical socially as well as historically inclined if that’s what your shooting for. Then again prove me wrong with your history department master what not.



  • If you want to go for realism, bang your head repetidly on the table. Solves 2 problems at once.



  • I never new it was suppose to a realistic game or anything along those lines, It’s more of a pick-up and play FPS. It’s fine the way it is in my opinion, some minor touch ups to some of the weapons and add some new ones will be great.



  • Attribute percentages are approximates, and adding them up doesn’t take into account a lot of factors that make a weapon effective. Your observations regarding the War Hammer, for instance, are deceptive, as it is in fact one of the best primaries in the game.

    They allow you to compare weapons at a glance. But they are far from an objective measure of power. I’d suggest you spend some time in-game and experience the usage of these weapons in actual play. If you truly want to pore over numbers, find spreadsheets of full weapon-data. But even that won’t tell you how a weapon’s strengths synergize with each other, or the weapon animation timings, or any number of factors that aren’t represented by attributes.

    Teamwounding is a community problem, and has a couple potential fixes, but there’s not much to be done about it now. Responding with politeness sometimes dissuades people from continuing their behavior, though.

    To address the topic, no, the game is not meant to be historically accurate by any means, especially given the game takes place in a fictional setting. I do, however, hope you’ll find a way to change your perspective and enjoy the game. :)



  • It’s not supposed to be accurate and just adding up numbers doesn’t tell you anything about how good a weapon is. The warhammer is the only one handed weapon that can two-shot every class, it is very strong.



  • This is the dumbest thing I’ve read all week.



  • I beleive that, so far, the devs has thought that game balance > historical accuracy.
    Than again you might guess it’s a work of fiction and doesn’t intend being TOO accurate; Many weapons comes from very different time periods and cultures (ie. Zweihander comes from the italian reinassance, the Claymore from the scotland middle-times.), still Agatha and Mason both know and use them all.

    *Edit. I found it fun that your nick is ‘it doesn’t matter’, it fits well with what you brought up.



  • @afiNity:

    Cmon if this game was supposed to be realistic the Knights couldn’t sprint, crouch or jump and they would move with the speed of a snail.

    The gameplay is far away from being realistic/accurate so why even bother with historic accuracy?
    Besides that Agatha and Mason would have to be renamed to (for example) England and France and I don’t think that we want this.



  • Simply for the treatment you gave War Hammer, wow… And if it is ‘Authentic’ then I’d love the info posted on Whom is doing this decision making on authentic and realism.

    The weapon looks authentical enough, the stats are for balancing the game. That’s why crossbows can’t kill with one shoot, even the heaviest one which should do this (and I think at least the latest one should kill per hit in the body/head, otherwise there is no point of wielding the heavy crossbow).

    Secondly, when playing an archer… I’m tired of being hit by random team mates cause they have some grudge against archers. Maybe you should have some kind of label for people hit by friendly fire so they can know whom is hitting them. It’s kind of misdirected rage when out of no where a team member walks over and kills me its irritating especially when I’m busy trying to find a guy the size of an ’ i ’

    People problem, not the game problem.

    Thirdly, I added up some numbers on weapon damage, speed, reach totals. I know your shooting for the differences in ranged, two handed, one handed and shield all that jazz. But serious? War Hammer worse primary tier 1 in the game? Check your history all I’m going to say, Why I recommend the first.

    Could do some explaination what these “totals” are supposed to mean. Saying that war hammer is “the worst primary tier 1 in the game” shows how little you really know. It can kill any enemy in two blows if used correctly. Some even claim it to be overpowered from gameplay perspective, but I don’t think so as reach and speed of it are quite low, one of the lowest if I remember correctly.

    Aside that, I can’t believe you don’t have a Bec de corbin.

    There are plans to add other weapons as well.

    Besides, what’s your idea?



  • I think Historic accuracy should be the starting point, if that doesn’t work or limits you then you move away from it, knowing how accurate the game is already (not very) I still think it must be seen as a starting point.



  • @qlum:

    I think Historic accuracy should be the starting point, if that doesn’t work or limits you then you move away from it, knowing how accurate the game is already (not very) I still think it must be seen as a starting point.

    Well, it’s somehow medieval. Most of the things you see in-game are based on true stuff from the period. Apart from that it’s not “authentic history” nor is it supposed to be.
    Haven’t seen anybody judging The Lord of the Rings by history standards…

    If you want historical accuracy maybe there’ll be a mod some day.



  • Yeah, if anything I think they should get rid of some of the real world references (cross, etc.) and lean more towards their own Game of Thrones-esque gameworld.



  • Don’t be so pedantic. If you want people to know about or acknowledge something, lay out the facts.



  • It isn’t important. Think about how bad the game would be if EVERYTHING was accurate. Man at arms and archers would die in one hit for all weapons… That’s if the archers actually got close enough for knights to actually have a chance to hit them.



  • @Matti:

    It isn’t important. Think about how bad the game would be if EVERYTHING was accurate. Man at arms and archers would die in one hit for all weapons… That’s if the archers actually got close enough for knights to actually have a chance to hit them.

    Hahahaaa~ You said it, Matti! Chivalry in its current state is more like an Arena FPS than an accurate historical representation… And there’s nothing wrong with that! It’s fun!



  • Fun is the most important thing.

    If we’re having fun then who cares.

    If the devs don’t have fun then they become over worked and less emotionally dedicated to the game which in turn will certainly show through their work.



  • Fun is probably the most important thing, and fun can at least partly be gotten from balance (because it’s never fun to be slaughtered even though you’re more skilled than the opponent because his chosen class is inherently more powerful than any other).

    However, let’s not forget that the best balance is in fact based on reality! Real life is the best balancer, either in a 1 vs 1 way or in a rock-paper-scissors way, because if one type of warrior or weapon would be clearly worse than all other types, it wouldn’t be used long enough for us to even know about it, and if one weapon or class was clearly superior to all others, it would be the only weapon or class used…

    In real life, each weapon and armor and class that was used often enough for us to know about it had their strengths and weaknesses, and if you were to represent those strengths and weaknesses correctly in the game, it couldn’t be anything but balanced :) . There’s a good reason that (metal) armor and swords and spears have disappeared from the battlefield - they became unbalanced when the next best thing was introduced.

    Once you understand this, it’s easy to see the problems with some of the classes: archers should be deadly from a distance, but utterly useless in a melee (but in-game they are way too good in a melee while shooting an arrow is too easy, which is why they feel unbalanced to many people); vanguards can make powerful attacks at ranges where their opponent can’t strike back, but just swinging blindly tires them very quickly, and if an opponent DOES get inside their weapon’s killing range, he should have a hard time defending himself close-in (but again, in-game the vanguard can keep swinging his heavy weapons pretty much endlessly, and can stab you with his 8 feet spear even when you’re hugging him (and the bugs in the flinching mechanism are also in his favor), and so the vanguard feels unbalanced to many people too.

    So to make a long story short: I think historical accuracy for its own sake is not so important (even though I myself do like a realistic setting), but it is a useful guide to get a game that feels balanced, fun, and meets expectations for the chosen setting.



  • @zeusbty:

    quote

    I have to echo these sentiments. Reality is an excellent basis from which to start a game’s balance. Not to mention some people like realism, even for its own sake. However, it’s important to keep in mind what the game is meant to be.

    Granted, Chivalry is quite realistic as it is now (compare: PvK2), even if its intention isn’t to be a simulator. Think how Counter-Strike was in the day. It was considered a fairly realistic, tactical shooter. This is because realism is relative to what else is out there on the market. Most people hadn’t gotten their hands on Rainbow Six, so CS was considered pretty realistic. Now, well… not so much.

    As far as medieval combat goes, Chivalry is realistic. But let’s not forget realism isn’t really the point, here.



  • The discussion was about historical accuracy, not realism. Both isn’t really the case while there hasn’t been a melee sword fighting mechanic more accurate than this. So, is quite realistic (compared to other games that tried it which isn’t much).



  • If this game were realistic, knights would be invulnerable and Vanguards would be nearly invulnerable. People don’t seem to realize how hard it is to chop through steel.


Log in to reply